Starmer faces grassroots rebellion over grooming gangs
Sir Keir Starmer is facing a grassroots rebellion over his refusal to launch a national inquiry into the grooming gangs scandal.
The Prime Minister has rejected demands to launch a statutory inquiry into the historical sexual abuse of thousands of children by gangs of men, predominantly of Pakistani heritage.
On Thursday, Sir Keir denied plans for up to five initial local inquiries had been scaled back after the Government said it would make the money available for councils but they could use it as they wished to tackle grooming.
But Blue Labour, a campaign group founded by the Labour peer Lord Glasman, insisted Sir Keir had not gone far enough and called on him to commit to a nationwide government-backed inquiry.
The group said: 'Blue Labour's position on the grooming and rape gangs is unchanged. This is a national evil that requires a national response.
'Local authorities lack the necessary capabilities and legal authority to carry out investigations, and often they are in need of investigation themselves.
'We need a national inquiry with full statutory powers. The decades-long abuse of young girls and its cover-up is a sickness that must be exorcised from the body politic.
'Labour is committed to reforming the state and its institutions, to restoring trust and consent in government, and to renewing the social covenant that binds us together. We can start the renewal here.'
'An evil that has got to be seen to be public'
Lord Glasman told The Telegraph: 'Our position is unchanged. We call for an immediate national inquiry with full powers of arrest. This is an evil that has got to be seen to be public.'
A political theorist who first coined the term 'Blue Labour' in 2009, Lord Glasman is viewed as an important voice within Labour and has the ear of Morgan McSweeney, Sir Keir's chief of staff.
He is said to have informed Mr McSweeney's thinking on immigration and how Labour can appeal to disillusioned working-class voters who are minded to back Reform UK.
He has broken with the Government line on a number of issues, including the Chagos Islands handover deal to Mauritius as well as the appointment of Lord Hermer as Attorney General.
Blue Labour is said to have a growing number of supporters on the Labour back benches. These are known to include Jonathan Hinder, the MP for the Red Wall constituency of Pendle and Clitheroe in Lancashire.
Other backers include Dan Carden, a former ally of Jeremy Corbyn, who in January broke ranks with Sir Keir to call for a full national inquiry into grooming gangs.
The same call has been made by Kemi Badenoch, the Tory leader, and Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform UK.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
37 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
We should all hope Rachel Reeves delivers growth - or our taxes are going up: SIMON LAMBERT
Rachel Reeves faced a big challenge in her spending review. This is the event where she sets down a marker for what Labour plans to do under Sir Keir Starmer and herself as Chancellor. Funds are pledged to projects and government departments that fit with Labour's priorities – future Budgets should align with a plan to make this happen. Reeves faced a double challenge though, as she also needed to convince the country Labour can deliver growth and improve Britain, while balancing the books in a way that convinces markets the UK's finances are under control. The first element involves a commitment to spend, the second requires spending less or raising taxes. Clearly, this is a difficult balancing act to pull off at the best of times. But if you've promised not to raise taxes and many in your party are vehemently opposed to spending cuts to already threadbare public services, it's even harder. Add in the backdrop of a screeching U-turn on winter fuel payments, a rise in job losses blamed on the Autumn Budget 's employer national insurance rise, and a Spring Statement that regained a wafer-thin £9.9billion fiscal rule buffer only for this to be wiped out soon after by Donald Trump's tariff ructions, and you don't envy Reeves at all. As the old asking for directions joke punchline goes: 'Well, I wouldn't start from here'. There was more money for defence, schools and the NHS and less money for other public services deemed less important, or able to be brushed under the carpet for now. Ultimately though, the economic story remains the same as it was with Reeves' Tory predecessors: meet your targets by outlining plans that involve growth picking up, productivity improving and cutting spending in the future. Since Rishi Sunak there's also been some fiscal drag from frozen tax thresholds chucked in for good measure. Based on the OBR's five-year outlooks, this allows Chancellors to meet their fiscal rules. The fact that these forecasts inevitably turn out to be wrong, productivity doesn't improve, and things don't end up balancing is conveniently ignored. Yet, still we continue with the farce of policy by spreadsheet. As I've written before this fairytale economics is a terrible way to make decisions. Fortunately, the Chancellor had one card up her sleeve, the change to borrowing rules that allowed extra infrastructure investment. It freed her up to announce £113billion of plans to knock Britain into shape. These ranged from £39billion for affordable homes over a decade, to £30billion on nuclear power, £15billion on transport schemes. Among the beneficiaries will be rail and bus links in the North, the Oxford to Cambridge Arc, and the Sizewell C nuclear plant. Will these things deliver growth? Over time, they should do, but we will have to wait for that to arrive. In the meantime, we face a summer of speculation over tax rises in an Autumn Budget – and with the three big earners of income tax, national insurance and VAT off the table due to Labour's pre-election promise, that would mean more tinkering around the edges. The target of tax rises is likely to be wealth, and hitting the wealthy means potentially going after pensions, savings and investments – the OECD even called for a council tax hike on big homes last week. What if things can only get better? But there is an alternative scenario. Through a combination of bad luck and her own mistakes, such as the mystifying '£22billion black hole' gloomfest, Reeves has been caught out in her time as Chancellor. Government borrowing costs have risen, borrowing itself has come in higher than forecast, and growth has disappointed. Meanwhile, the second iteration of President Trump has proved even more erratic than the first. If things move in the opposite direction though, the UK's finances could improve, and Reeves would catch a lucky break and not have to raise taxes in autumn. This is not an entirely far-fetched scenario, GDP growth in early 2025 was better than expected, a calmer period could see government borrowing costs fall, and a pick-up in the economy would deliver extra tax revenue. Its doubtful that much benefit will be seen from the infrastructure splurge for a while, but the government's pledge to build homes and its threats against reluctant councils are already seeing more approved. I'm reading increasing reports of councils waving through schemes they would previously have said no to. Most likely as they are worried about appeals if they turn developers down and get over-ruled. This may come at a cost to the environment and local communities, while developers cash in, but if enough spades go in the ground, it will boost growth. Meanwhile, companies seem to have front-loaded job cuts, the UK stock market is on the up, and I feel that we may be past the moment of peak consumer gloom. All this could bring that much hoped for improvement in growth. I know this would mess with many of our readers' desire for schadenfreude over Labour, but to my mind, greater prosperity is definitely a better outcome. Otherwise, taxes will surely be going up again soon. How far would you go to avoid your personal tax raid? Tax is an increasingly taxing subject for many people who feel hard done by as Britain's complicated system catches them out. And, it's getting worse. So how far would you go to avoid your personal tax raid? And is it changing people's behaviour? On this podcast, Georgie Frost, Lee Boyce and Simon Lambert dive into how the British tax tail is wagging the dog - and what you can do to avoid infuriating tax traps.
The Herald Scotland
40 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Winter fuel payment u-turn exposes flaws in SNP's universalism
Reeves maintained that circumstances have changed so much that the u-turn now represents a model of safe fiscal navigation. She was bound to claim that and I don't really care, so long as it allows a costly political mistake to be neutralised. In fact, Reeves' statement indicated quite a few 'u-turns' which have headed the government in more recognisable Labour directions. Thank goodness for that too, I say. People voted for change and it needs to be more visible. In the run-up to last week's by-election, lots of voters were still angry about Reeves' initial action on Winter Fuel Payments but not enough, as it proved, to change the outcome. Labour has had the sense to listen and respond with more positive messages. The Chancellor was not just redistributionist in her commitments to health, education, housing and so on, which apply directly to England. She also spread serious investment around the nations and regions, on top of the record £52 billion to the Scottish Government. Read more from Brian Wilson: Her England-only funding will lead to lots of 'Barnett consequentials' for Scotland. Normally, these are taken with one ungrateful hand and recycled with the other as Scottish Government largesse, without a backward reference to where the money came from. Anas Sarwar will need to keep reminding them and this time more attention must be paid to whether the extra billions are used for priorities which generated them. For example, every penny of 'consequentials' which flow from extra NHS spending in England should be spent on the NHS in Scotland, which has not always happened in the past. There should be complete transparency around this and how other Barnett money, on top of the £52 billion, is spent, and the value we get. However convoluted the route to get here, Winter Fuel Payments now offer a perfect example of why 'universalism' is one pillar of nationalist rule which is long overdue for a 'u-turn', preferably under a new Holyrood administration which has the courage to take the argument on. Under Reeves' plans, pensioners with income under £35,000 a year will get the Winter Fuel Payment of two or three hundred pounds. Those above that amount will not. The vast majority of people will regard that compromise as somewhere between fair and generous. I haven't heard anyone plead the case for restoring universalism. Except, of course, in Scotland where the nationalists committed themselves to paying every pensioner £100, whether they need it or not. It was a political gimmick to demonstrate generosity, humanity etc in comparison to Whitehall, to be funded entirely from the Scottish budget (at the expense of something else). Now the money will come from the Treasury and it will be up to Edinburgh to divvy it up. If they persist in giving £100 to pensioners above the £35,000 threshold, it will either be at the expense of the less well-off or an entirely pointless use of scarce resources, other than to justify 'universalism'. Maybe that example could open the door to an overdue wider debate in Scotland around 'universalism' which opposition politicians tend to steer clear of because the assumption has developed that 'free things are popular' even if their effect is to widen wealth and attainment gaps, rather than narrow them. In a world of unlimited resources, universalism may be a desirable concept, to be recouped through correspondingly high taxation. In the world we inhabit, on the other hand, it is a lofty-sounding device for transferring scarce resources from those who have least to others who are much better off. That is a deception which the SNP have deployed to great advantage. Anyone who challenges it is accused of wanting to reintroduce 'means-testing' which carries the stigma of 1930s oppressors keeping money from the poor. In the 2020s, however, the case for 'means-testing' is to stop giving money to those who don't need it. Another obvious example of this con-trick involves 'free tuition' which now plays a large part in bringing Scotland's universities to the point of penury, forcing large-scale redundancies, excluding Scottish students from hundreds of desirable courses and making our great seats of learning more dependent on decisions taken in Beijing and Seoul than Edinburgh. 'Universalism is one pillar of nationalist rule which is long overdue for a 'u-turn', preferably under a new Holyrood administration' (Image: Radmat) At some point, politicians must have the courage to call out this deception for what it is. The guiding principle that nobody should be prohibited by economic circumstances from going to university does not equate to 'universalism'. Quite the opposite is true. Universalism actually works against those who need far more support if the dial on educational attainment is ever going to move, which it hasn't done in Scotland under present policies and posturing. If public money is to be better spent in Scotland to attack poverty and disadvantage while creating a thriving economy, then shibboleths will have to be challenged. The Scottish Government has never been short of money and certainly won't be now. The question of how it is spent and wasted should be the battlefield of political debate. Another satisfactory 'u-turn' confirmed yesterday was recognition that nuclear power will be an essential component in the transition to a clean energy future. I wish the same obvious conclusion had been reached 20 years ago, when I was arguing for it within government, or could be recognised even now by the student politicians in Edinburgh. With renewables and nuclear, Scotland really could have been a world leader on net zero. Without nuclear, it will still need fossil fuels for baseload for the foreseeable future with imports, rather oddly, regarded by some as morally superior to those extracted from the North Sea. Bring on another u-turn! Brian Wilson is a former Labour Party politician. He was MP for Cunninghame North from 1987 until 2005 and served as a Minister of State from 1997 to 2003.
Daily Mirror
42 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Parents warned they could be missing out on huge benefit as they need to apply
Students who are eligible for free school meals should be automatically registered to ensure no child misses out, the Education Policy Institute has demanded in a report Students who are eligible for free school meals should be automatically registered to ensure no child misses out, a think tank has demanded. Parents across the country face different requirements in applying for free school meals which is creating "inequalities" in accessing them, the Education Policy Institute (EPI) said. In some local authorities, parents are required to make their own application while facing significant barriers and if not found eligible at the time must reapply when circumstances change. Other local areas keep an eye on whether a child becomes eligible and sign them up as soon as they are entitled, without relying on parents sharing details or making an application. It comes after Keir Starmer last week announced that more than half a million children will become eligible for free school meals after a major expansion of eligibility rules. The PM unveiled plans to extend the lifeline benefit to all kids in families who get Universal Credit (UC) in England, in a move that could save parents up to £500 a year. Currently, only households on UC who earn below £7,400 a year qualify for free school meals. The expansion, which will come into force in September 2026, marked a victory for the Mirror's long-running campaign to widen provision to stop children being too hungry to learn. But concerns have been raised that many children will not actually receive the free hot lunch as they might not be registered. The EPI said despite efforts to enrol kids, issues around language barriers, digital access and stigma are preventing kids from benefiting from the system. Some local authorities, who already have auto-enrolment, discovered 'large numbers' of eligible children were not registered before they introduced the system. The Education Policy Institute's paper, funded by The Nuffield Foundation, calls on the Government to introduce a national auto-enrolment scheme to ensure all eligible families are registered for free school meals. It said: "Despite this expansion in FSM (free school meals) eligibility, without further action from the Government, children may continue to miss out on the free meals they are entitled to. The barriers to registration and differences in registration practices across LAs means children still face inequalities in access to free meals." The report added: "In terms of barriers families face in applying to FSM - including English as an additional language, stigma, confusion about eligibility - auto-enrolment would largely eradicate these issues." The report also found that some children who attend maintained nurseries before and after lunch are missing out on free meals to which they are entitled. An additional 77,700 children became eligible for free school meals in the past year, according to recent data published by the Department for Education. More than one in four (25.7%) pupils in England were eligible for free school meals in January, the equivalent of 2.17 million children - up from 24.6%, or 2.09 million, in January 2024. The Liberal Democrats have been piling pressure on the Government to auto-enrol eligible children for free school meals. Munira Wilson, the party's education spokeswoman, said: 'We were heartened last week to see the Government finally listen to so many campaigners - including Lib Dems - by expanding free school meals to all children in poverty. This report rightly identifies the next piece of the puzzle: the many, many children missing out on the meals they are entitled to. 'It's heartbreaking to think that thousands of families are missing out on transformative help that they might not even know their children are eligible for. We urge the Government to take this next common-sense step, listen to Liberal Democrats once again and introduce auto-enrolment for all kids on free school meals.' Dr Kerris Cooper, senior researcher for early years and inequalities at EPI, said: "Our research shows that while the extension of free school meal eligibility is a very positive step, more needs to be done to ensure that all children entitled to free meals can actually access them. "Introducing national auto-enrolment and including children in early education would enable this expansion in FSM eligibility to more meaningfully extend access to more children in poverty." Pepe Di'Iasio, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL), said: "Moving to a national system of auto-enrolment would be the next logical step to ensure that everyone who is now eligible under the new criteria will actually receive a meal and the intended benefits." He added: "We see no reason why a national system of auto-enrolment cannot be established relatively straightforwardly.' Last week, education minister Stephen Morgan told MPs in the Commons that the Government would be working to make it easier for people to apply. He said the announcement on expanding free school meals was a "significant, straightforward process for parents to know whether they are eligible".
